Reviews (45)

Misunderstood
This gist of this film is clearly distorted by the rigor of
collective defense mechanisms extant on both the hetero- and homo-sexual side of the proverbial fence. If the film is instructive at all it reminds the viewer of the thin line that separates us all in the arena of sexual inclination and drive. "Cruising" manages to convey, through the prevailing imagery that the title connotes, the psychic pitfalls rampant in the all too fettered terrain just off the lower Hudson.While there is much to critique in this film, no one can deny that Pacino's characteristic tension perfectly projects the often horrific sexual ambivalence that is the film's main thrust. To the extent that the viewer permits himself to be entertained by the intimate dichotomy that underlies the
murderous aggression, a reasoned sense of enlightenment may be the surprising result.

Distasteful But Historically Significant
Gay characters began to reach the American screen in the 1960s, but they would not be portrayed with any validity until the 1980s.Curiously, one of the most homophobic films created by Hollywood would mark the transition: the 1980 William Friedkin CRUISING starring Al Pacino, Paul Sorvino, and Karen Allen.

Based on the novel of the same name, CRUISING might best be described as a sexual thriller.Police officer Steve Burns (Al Pacino) is sent undercover into the gay community to attract and identify a serial killer who stalks New York City S&M bars, slashing and sometimes dismembering his victims with a serrated knife.But even as the killer strikes again and again, Burns becomes more and more entangled in this extremely dark world, comes to identify with the killer, and eventually self-destructs in a particularly nightmarish way.

From an artistic standpoint, CRUISING has several things going for it.Director Friedkin has an interesting eye, and the film has an unexpectedly gritty, at times almost documentary-like style.It also has tremendous atmosphere; it is adept at making the viewer feel unsettled.The cast is also effective in heightening the disturbing tone of the film as a whole.What the film does not have is a coherent plot, nor does it have anything approaching a decent script, and it is grotesquely insulting to the gay community in several ways.

CRUISING equates homosexuality with an extreme sexual lifestyle, and what emerges is a portrait of "nasty men doing nasty things in nasty bars."Does such a subculture exist in the gay community?Of course it does, just as it does in the heterosexual community--but CRUISING posits this as the norm for homosexuals.Even more distastefully, what ultimately emerges is the idea that a heterosexual man can be seduced into the gay community in which (at least according to the film) extreme sex, insanity, and violent death all go hand in hand.And it was precisely this that so outraged many in the gay community when the film was made.Film shoots were repeatedly disrupted by protests, and director Friedkin tried to calm the matter by stating that CRUISING was not "about" homosexuals--an extremely bizarre statement that only fueled community ire.

A number of gay organizations greeted the film with boycotts, but as it happened their efforts were unnecessary.Few critics and even fewer moviegoers liked the film and it soon faded from view.Seen today it reads very much like a snapshot of American homophobia in 1980 and little more. But CRUISING does have a certain historical significance: by and large it would be the last major Hollywood film to present the entire gay community in a wholly negative light.

The very outrageousness of the film seemed to prompt American film makers to a much needed reevaluation of the way in which gay characters were portrayed on screen.Although "gay man equals bad man" characters have cropped up in a few films since--Kevin Costner's NO WAY OUT and several of Mel Gibson's films come to mind--the overall reaction to CRUISING killed the stereotype.And so the film, in an accidental sort of way, is significant from a historical standpoint; film historians and movie buffs will find it interesting, and I give it three stars for their sake.But just about everyone else should leave it alone.

GFT, Amazon Reviewer

CRUISING CHANGED AL PACINO'S MIND ABOUT THE GAY LIFE
After CRUISING came out, I saw the author of the original book interviewed on a NY television news show. He was as confused as most of the audience who saw the film."It doesn't make any sense," he said. "They cut out the principle parts of my book and bowed to pressure.It's a mess."

I went to see CRUISING at a huge theatre on Broadway and saw it with a packed house. Some guys I personally knew were in the film (I was supposed to audition but had to leave town because Mommy was ill).I didn't dislike the movie, per se, I just don't like to be blind-folded and led down a dark "cul de sac."This movie was mostly a tease: is Al Pacino getting turned on by all the sex he's witnessing, or, is he just amazed that good-looking gay men, most of whom are as masculine as straight guys, are actually doing these things?The Central Park, Village and other cruising activity was very realistic and ominous.

Pacino was in a rather dull, "let's-eat-and-watch-television" type of relationship and was suddenly thrusted into the dark underworld of leather bars and anonymous sex.It was obvious that the Pacino character was "interested" in the raunchy goings on at the underground haunts.He really got caught up in the scene filmed at The Bar in the East Village where he unwittingly sees the killer for the first time.Al gets swept up in some frenzied dancing and popper sniffing during this scene and actually looked like "one of the muscled boys."

On Uniform Night at dark dive, he witnesses some heavy sex activity which included a sling and a can of Crisco.Freidkin fought like made to keep Al straight, but curious, and I think that he really did have catching the murderer as his #1 priority.But there were holes in the script.The main one came when Al felt he had found the killer and where he lived.He breaks into the guy's apartment, snoops around, but doesn't take anything that might have the guy's fingerprints!The police have the killer's print on the coin found in the gay book store's porn peep booth.Al ignores or forgets his training as an undercover cop.I think he was more interested in "getting under the covers" with some of those oversexed studs he stared at in the bars.

I hated seeing Malo turning into such a wuss during the stabbing scene in the Times Squre hotel.He could have taken that guy, or at least fought for his life!

My friend Denny did a wonderful job of cruising the guy who became the second victim who gets stabbed to death in the peep show at the book store over on Eighth Avenue.

And where did the idea come from to put two drag queens in leather and high-heeled boots, stomping through the Village in this mix?!!!.I've never seen any NY characters like that in real-life!And then, to have two wayward cops force "the girls" to have sex in the back of the police car?Please.It was nice seeing Keith Prentice (Larry in "Boys in the Band") as the partner of victim #2.He was a good actor and should have gotten more work.

You could see Pacino "changing" during the latter part of the movie. He felt self-conscious about his body after seeing all the perfectly-built gay men and he starts to work out.His love-making with his girlfriend became rough and abusive while the sounds of the depraved gay-bar-sex played in his head.

At the end (after he has solved the crime), we see Al Pacino, dressed completely in leather, headed for a night out in the sleazy leather bars...

Pacino, gives a realistic, but confused performance (as written and directed) and I enjoyed Paul Sorvino as the police chief.I liked the film noir quality of this piece, even though it was in color.The night was dark in this film and the bar scenes, though a bit over-the-top, gave a pretty acurate view of this underworld.

Where's the DVD on this ground-breaking movie?

Very good
Every gay guy needs to watch this movie and stop having so much anoymous sex. I myself a gay man seen this long time ago and going home or anywhere with someone has always made me think of this movie. Everyone should be careful including straight people when going home with someone. This movie will make you think more with your brain instead of your....

Flawed, un-PC, but still disturbing & effective - no DVD?!!
I snuck into the theater when I was 13 years old to see this and was disturbed to say the least - as a young gay teen, Friedkin's own brand of "horrorshow" made me (wrongly) assume that all gay men were leather-clad, freaky serial killers! Still, when you look at the f*d-up film now, you see many of the same techniques the director used for his earlier hits like "Exorcist," most notably shock tactics and in-your-face blunt sexually violent imagery to get a reaction out of conservative critics and audiences alike. In fact, in retrospect, I'd say all the negative press coverage and gay rights protests that met "Cruising" upon its initial 1982 theatrical release were a bit overkill - sure this movie decidedly portrays (some) gays in a negative, one-note light, but this isn't a documentary (even if it feels like one), but a fictional murder-mystery thriller with a gay angle as thematic hook.Oddly, I actually wish Friedkin would have gone further - funny, he doesn't shy away from showing seedy, explicit, severely cruel gay murders (*the scene where the killer knifes the cute Columbia professor in the back saying "You made me do that!" ranks as one of the most disturbing death scenes ever!), Friedkin doesn't have the BALLS to show male-on-male affection - this explains why Pacino in the lead role seems so UNCOMFORTABLE at doing his P.I. work - he's willing to go underground, but he's NOT willing to GO DOWN!And what are we to make of the notoriously "ambivalent" final shot - to me, it feels more like a COP-OUT than a genuine mystery - is Pacino's cop gay? the killer? in denial? Is it all a dream? Who knows - the film itself looks like it was SEVERELY EDITED prior to release - so here's hoping when and IF it ever re-surfaces on DVD we will be treated to DELETED SCENES which censors cut out that might finally explain it all?Or at least an indepth documentary illuminating the process behind the camera?As it is, CRUISING remains a flawed, but undeniable ground-breaking, ahead-of-its-time movie - do you think a major studio movie covering gay sexuality would ever be THIS unflinching in its depicting or honesty of some segements of extreme gay sex culture? Hell NO! At times, it looks like a bleak, sad glimpse at another world - and it was to my eyes: a decadent 70s idyll in NYC that we've all heard about, but now post-AIDS seems like centuries ago, the Roman era if you will.At least we have this sordid little flick as a kind of document of that long lost Mappelthorpe-esque era.**FINAL NOTE: During the graphic gay murder scenes, if you look VERY close, you can tell that Friedkin has INSERTED SUBLIMINAL XXX GAY PORNO SCENES in the midst of the violence, equating gay intercourse with the act of murder?Aside from the fact I am AMAZED this got past the censors in the 80s, this kind of directorial decision is very very upsetting to say the least - what is Friedkin trying to say in these sequences - or just get us all collectively off with homophobic violence?Not everyone's cup of tea, but you'll have to rent the film to decide. ... Read more